Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:26:16 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 04:49:40, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 04:23:06, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On July 20, 2000 at 01:52:05, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On July 19, 2000 at 20:07:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 19, 2000 at 16:38:18, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 19, 2000 at 14:12:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 19, 2000 at 12:53:59, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 19, 2000 at 12:04:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 19, 2000 at 00:51:49, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 21:58:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 16:49:19, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 16:03:28, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 14:08:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 11:38:01, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 10:58:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2000 at 02:00:31, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2000 at 20:08:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2000 at 17:02:22, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2000 at 16:09:09, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2000 at 07:22:41, Graham Laight wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm afraid I still feel that Junior could have come out ahead (instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>level)in this tournament by beating Bareev and Khalifman - and possibly by not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>losing with such apparent ease to Kramnik. Continuing the game against Anand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>might possibly have gained an extra half point as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think that Amir has an aspiration to make his program demonstably better than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Deep Blue (this certainly comes across in his interviews published on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chessbase Website coverage of Dortmund (www.chessbase.com) before the Kramnik >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>game). If so, as a (hopefully!) impartial member of the viewing public, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>afraid to say that I've yet to be convinced. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As evidence, I point firstly to the games against Bareev and Khalifman. On both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>occasions when Deep Blue '97 gained an advantage over Gary Kasparov (who's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>better player than anyone at Dortmund was), it parlayed that advantage into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>victory - whilst Deep Junior twice failed conspicuously to "slam in the lamb". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I would also point to the game against Khalifman. Here we see Deep Junior lose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to a combination of blocked centre and king attack - classic anti computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>methods which have both been well known for a long time. They work because, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>this case, nothing short of truly massive search depth is going to help you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>make the correct moves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>However, for both king attack and blocked centre, Deep Blue '97 demonstrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that it's evaluation knowledge was able to adequately handle the challenge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Indeed, in game 2 in '97, Deep Blue not only handled the blocked centre, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>turned it into a win! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It took Deep Blue 2 attempts to beat Gary Kasparov, the world's best player - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>maybe another year of work will push Deep Junior to a position where it can try >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to win these tournaments, instead of settling for a middling position. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But let's not be completely churlish - Dortmund 2000 was indeed a fantastic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>performance by Deep Junior - and a landmark in computer chess history, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>here is both a computer and a program which one can buy in the shops! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I disagree with most of this, but it's your opinion, and if experience teaches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>us anything, it's useless to argue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>For the record, I'm not trying to prove that I'm better than Deep Blue. I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've already shown this some time ago, and I'm not the only one who can say so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Looking at the (very few) games of DB, I don't see that it had either better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>evaluation or deeper search than today's top programs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amir >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I must say I'm skeptical, though I would have a good laugh if it were true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you aware of any positions from the 2nd Kasparov-DB match where Junior (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any other micro) plays a clearly better move than DB? Not that this would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>conclusively prove a thing - it would just be interesting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Or we can take a few of the positions from the DB log files and try them on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"top programs". I'm not aware of any "top program" that can do 16-18 plies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the middlegame... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Please post these positions that would be fun and you might be surprised >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about the outcome. But the key-moves must be clear as there should be no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>discussion what is the best move. I for example don't believe the Rc6 vs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rc7 is a good position as this is a case of 0.10 (or so) in evaluation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not talking about "key move" at all. I am talking about doing a full-width >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>exhaustive search to depth 16-18 in the middlegame, in the same positions where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DB did 16-18 ply full-width searches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't believe _anybody_ can match their depth/speed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>All fine but where are the promised positions from the log-files... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't "promise" any positions: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Yes you are right after I read again. I thought you had some challenging >>>>>>>>>>>>positions for us poor micro users to compare. What a pity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I would suggest that we take a close look at some of the positions from game 1 >>>>>>>>>>>of the '97 match. It's the only game that DB lost. Could the micros have >>>>>>>>>>>avoided some of those mistakes at tournament time controls? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>BTW, I don't think it's interesting to compare search depths with the IBM >>>>>>>>>>>logfiles, as Bob has suggested. I think Amir's original point was that Junior >>>>>>>>>>>searches as deeply as DB in the lines where it matters. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>--Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I would claim that point is nonsense. You only have to read their papers on >>>>>>>>>>DT and DB to see what their search was doing, extension-wise. It was quite >>>>>>>>>>sophisticated, as it proved over and over against micro programs in ACM events. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I would claim that point is nonsense. Chess is about playing the right >>>>>>>>>moves. We have seen machines with >200 processors losing all the time >>>>>>>>>from the micros. If memory serves me well no multi-processor system was >>>>>>>>>able to win the world champion title since 1992, Deep Thought included. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And? Let's try the following dates: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1983, 1986 (both cray machines) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1989, special purpose machine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1992, no "big iron" present (cray blitz, deep thought). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1995 DT lost one game. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So your statement, while true, is not exactly revealing of what went on. My >>>>>>>>program is not doing badly today. It is (except for wild null move R) very >>>>>>>>similar to Cray Blitz of 1995 in terms of search extensions and knowledge >>>>>>>>(except I am not yet using singular extensions as I did in 1995 CB). I don't >>>>>>>>think the micros were as far ahead of the 'big iron' as you want to believe. >>>>>>>>You think it was all hardware. It wasn't. And I agree that it still isn't >>>>>>>>today. But a better program, on faster hardware, will beat a good program on >>>>>>>>slow hardware most (but not all) of the time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We have been going through this issue how many times? :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Fact is this is the year 2000 five years after Hong Kong where everybody >>>>>>>included me expected DT to become the new world champion due to its huge >>>>>>>hardware advantage. It did not happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't see any reason why this could not happen again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't either. But take the following scenario: Someone walks up to you and >>>>>>says that all the programs in the world are going to gather, including the 97 >>>>>>version of deep blue, and they are going to play a round-robin chess tournament. >>>>>>You have to pick one program to win the event. If you are wrong, you lose your >>>>>>head. You _must_ bet on one program to win, you have no other choice. >>>>>> >>>>>>Who do _you_ bet on? To me it is a no-brainer... >>>>>> >>>>>>I wouldn't be happy having to bet on DB, but I can't think of anyone that would >>>>>>have a better chance to win, even though we _know_ that "crap happens" and any >>>>>>program can lose a game under the right circumstances. >>>>>> >>>>>>But what about probability? I think it would be open and shut to pick the >>>>>>program with the best chance, with no thought at all required. >>>>>> >>>>>>And yes, there would be a significant chance that you will lose your head. But >>>>>>if you pick anybody _but_ DB, the probability goes up dramatically that you will >>>>>>one day star in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow". :) >>>>> >>>>>I have a more realistic scenario. Micro's have made tremendous progress >>>>>the last years. Imagine that all the programs which participarted last >>>>>year in Paderborn would meet again including DB. Micro's will enter with >>>>>more multi-processor systems than last year. In that extremely strong >>>>>field it's not unlikely DB will lose one or two games + a couple of draws. >>>>>Okay, worst scenario but quite well possible. If this happens your end up >>>>>on place 5-7 or so. Like last year in Paderborn not always the strongest >>>>>hardware wins. A simple Pentium 550 ended number 1 despite of the many >>>>>multi-processors around. Faster hardware makes you a big favorite but that >>>>>doesn't mean you will win as Hong Kong has proven so convincingly. >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>I agree. But you didn't answer my question. With your head hanging in >>>>the balance, _who_ would you pick to win such a tournament? >>>> >>>>:) >>> >>>I did answer the question. I said that DB would be the big favorite. But >>>I assume we are in disagreement with the percentage which I estimate at >>>25% (based on the above) which is not much. >>> >> >>Bah ! Wrong answer. You should have answered: Rebel. >> >>If and when your life is at stake, always trust yourself. > >Yes you are right. How about this answer: > >Crafty - Rebel NPS game 0-1 >DB-Jr - Rebel 0-3 > >So much for speed... > >Better this way? > >Ed > >\ Err... what about "chess 2010"??? :) >>Amir
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.